Why Peacock Paid Big For Bugonia When It Already Flopped In Theaters

Bugonia earned just $39 million worldwide against a production budget between $45 and $55 million. By any traditional metric, the film was a theatrical disappointment. Yet on December 26, NBCUniversal's Peacock proudly launched the Emma Stone and Jesse Plemons thriller as one of its marquee holiday releases. The question isn't whether Peacock made a mistake. It's whether the rest of us understand the new economics of streaming well enough to recognize why this was actually a smart move.

The answer reveals how drastically the film industry has transformed, where box office failure and streaming success operate on completely different valuation systems.

The Universal Connection Makes This Deal Almost Inevitable

Before analyzing strategy, we need to understand the structural relationship at play. Bugonia was produced and distributed by Focus Features, which is a specialty division of Universal Pictures. Peacock is owned by NBCUniversal. They're part of the same corporate family under Comcast.

In 2021, Universal made a landmark decision to shift its Pay-One streaming rights from HBO, where they had resided since 2005, to Peacock. The deal stipulated that all Universal and Focus Features films would arrive on Peacock no later than four months after theatrical release. This wasn't a special arrangement for Bugonia. It's the standard pipeline for every Universal theatrical release.

So in one sense, Peacock didn't "pay big" for Bugonia in the way Netflix might pay to acquire a competitor's film. The streaming rights were essentially predetermined by corporate structure. But that doesn't mean the decision to prominently feature and market the film was automatic. Peacock could have buried Bugonia in its library without fanfare. Instead, they positioned it as a major December streaming event.

That choice reveals calculated strategy about what streaming platforms actually value in 2025.

Box Office Numbers Tell Only Half the Story

The $39 million worldwide gross looks disappointing in isolation. The film opened in limited release on October 24 with the year's best per-screen debut, then expanded wide on Halloween. Those numbers suggested audience interest existed, but couldn't sustain momentum against franchise competition and the general challenges facing adult-oriented dramas theatrically.

However, focusing purely on theatrical revenue misses the more important context. Focus Features and Universal knew from the beginning that Bugonia would have a second, potentially more lucrative life on Peacock. The theatrical window wasn't designed to be the profit center. It was designed to build prestige, generate awards buzz, and create cultural conversation that would drive streaming viewership later.

This represents a fundamental shift in how studios calculate success. The theatrical run is increasingly viewed as an expensive but necessary marketing campaign for the eventual streaming release. Box office losses can be justified if they create awareness that converts to streaming engagement.

Bugonia's theatrical strategy reflects this thinking. The film premiered at the Venice Film Festival in September, building critical acclaim and earning the Green Drop Award. It opened in limited release to capitalize on strong per-screen averages and positive reviews. The wide expansion on Halloween positioned it as counter-programming during a horror-dominated period. All of this created buzz and awareness without requiring massive marketing spend.

By the time Bugonia hit Peacock on December 26, millions of potential viewers had heard about the film, seen the Golden Globe nominations announced on December 13, and registered that this was a major awards contender. That awareness has tangible value for a streaming platform trying to attract and retain subscribers.

The Awards Season Economics Are More Valuable Than Box Office

Here's where the calculation gets really interesting. Bugonia received three Golden Globe nominations: Best Motion Picture in Musical or Comedy, Best Actress for Emma Stone, and Best Actor for Jesse Plemons. It earned three Critics Choice Award nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay. The American Film Institute named it one of the Top 10 Films of 2025.

Both Stone and Plemons remain in consideration for Oscar nominations, with screenwriter Will Tracy seen as having a strong shot at an Adapted Screenplay nod. The film is on the bubble for multiple categories.

For Peacock, this awards attention is worth far more than any theatrical gross Bugonia might have achieved. Streaming platforms have learned that awards prestige drives subscriber acquisition and retention in ways that pure entertainment value often doesn't. When a platform can claim it exclusively streams an Oscar-nominated film, that becomes a powerful marketing tool.

Netflix pioneered this understanding. The streamer has spent hundreds of millions on awards campaigns for films like Roma, The Irishman, and The Power of the Dog, understanding that Oscar nominations justify massive spending even when the films have limited theatrical runs. Apple TV+ made history when CODA became the first streaming-first film to win Best Picture in 2022. Amazon Prime Video's strategy with films like Sound of Metal proved that awards prestige translates directly to platform value.

Peacock is following this established playbook. By prominently featuring Bugonia during the critical period between Golden Globe nominations and potential Oscar nominations in January, the platform maximizes the film's value. Every article about Oscar predictions, every awards show appearance by Stone or Plemons, every critic's year-end list that includes Bugonia drives potential viewers to Peacock.

The timing of the December 26 release is perfect. Academy members voting on Oscar nominations have easy access to watch or rewatch the film. General audiences discussing Oscar possibilities can immediately stream it rather than waiting for rental availability. Peacock essentially positions itself as the home of awards season cinema, competing directly with platforms like Netflix and Apple TV+.

Prestige Content Differentiates Peacock in a Crowded Market

Peacock faces intense competition in the streaming wars. Netflix dominates in subscribers and content spend. Disney+ controls major franchises. HBO Max offers premium HBO content. Apple TV+ positions itself as the platform for prestige cinema. Amazon Prime Video leverages its massive subscription base.

In this crowded landscape, Peacock needs differentiation. Its core offering includes NBCUniversal's television library, Universal's film catalog, and live sports through NBC. But those assets don't necessarily scream prestige or cultural relevance in the way that original acclaimed films do.

Bugonia gives Peacock something to brag about. It's a Yorgos Lanthimos film, the hot director behind The Favourite and the Oscar-winning Poor Things. It stars Emma Stone, one of Hollywood's most acclaimed actresses, in her fourth collaboration with Lanthimos. It's generating serious awards conversation and critical praise with an 87% on Rotten Tomatoes.

This kind of prestige content serves multiple strategic purposes. It attracts cinephiles and awards-conscious viewers who might otherwise ignore Peacock. It gives cultural critics and entertainment media a reason to write about the platform. It signals to Hollywood talent that Peacock is serious about quality cinema, potentially attracting future projects. It provides premium content that justifies the platform's subscription fees.

For subscribers who might otherwise cancel after watching The Office for the fifteenth time, prestige films like Bugonia provide a reason to maintain their subscription. This is especially valuable during the typically slow streaming period after the holidays when platforms struggle with churn.

The psychological effect matters too. When potential subscribers evaluate whether Peacock is worth $10.99 per month, having recent acclaimed films like Bugonia in the library creates perceived value. It positions Peacock as a platform that offers more than just comfort rewatches and reality television.

The Streaming Window Creates a Second Revenue Opportunity

Beyond subscriber value, Peacock can monetize Bugonia through its ad-supported tier. The platform offers both ad-free and ad-supported subscription options. For viewers watching on the ad-supported tier, Peacock generates direct advertising revenue from Bugonia streams.

Given the film's awards profile and the celebrity power of Stone and Plemons, advertising slots during Bugonia likely command premium rates. Brands pay more to advertise during prestige content that attracts affluent, educated viewers. This is the same dynamic that makes Sunday Night Football or Succession so valuable for advertisers.

The theatrical failure actually enhances streaming value in this context. If Bugonia had been a huge theatrical hit, many potential viewers would have already seen it in theaters. The disappointing theatrical run means millions of interested viewers haven't yet watched the film, creating a large potential streaming audience.

Additionally, Peacock can leverage Bugonia for international distribution. The $39 million worldwide gross leaves significant global markets where the film never received meaningful theatrical distribution. Peacock can license international streaming rights, potentially through partnerships with local platforms or through NBCUniversal's international distribution channels.

The film also benefits from Peacock's position in the traditional Pay-One window structure. Under Universal's deal, films stream on Peacock for the first four months after theatrical release. From months five through fourteen, they become available on other platforms. Currently, that's Amazon Prime Video for live-action titles through 2026, then Netflix starting with the 2027 slate.

After this middle window, films return to Peacock for another four months. This creates multiple opportunities to market the same film to subscribers. When Bugonia returns to Peacock after its middle window elsewhere, the platform can promote it as "back by popular demand" or leverage any additional awards wins to drive new viewing.

My Take: This Is the New Hollywood Economics and We Need to Accept It
I'll be direct about this. The traditional metrics we use to judge film success are increasingly obsolete. Bugonia didn't fail. It succeeded at exactly what it was designed to do: generate awards prestige, critical acclaim, and cultural conversation that translates to streaming value.

We're still stuck in a mindset where box office determines success, but that's because box office is public and streaming engagement is proprietary. Peacock doesn't release viewership numbers for individual titles. We have no idea how many subscribers watched Bugonia during its first week. We don't know how many new subscribers signed up specifically to watch the film. We can't measure how many existing subscribers decided to maintain their subscription because of Bugonia's availability.

Without that data, we default to theatrical grosses, which creates a misleading narrative. Calling Bugonia a flop ignores that the theatrical run was never intended to be the primary revenue source. It was an expensive marketing campaign combined with an Academy Award eligibility requirement.

This new model isn't necessarily better than theatrical-first cinema. It does change incentive structures in ways that can hurt certain types of films. Mid-budget adult dramas that might have thrived as moderate theatrical successes in the 1990s now struggle to justify theatrical releases at all. Studios increasingly see these films as streaming content that happens to need a theatrical window for Oscar eligibility rather than as theatrical content that eventually streams.

That's a loss for the theatrical experience and for audiences who prefer watching films in theaters. But it's the reality of how economics have shifted. Streaming platforms can derive value from films in ways that don't require large theatrical audiences. Awards prestige, cultural relevance, subscriber retention, and content library depth all matter more than ticket sales for platforms like Peacock.

The Broader Strategy: Competing With Netflix and Apple TV+ for Prestige
Peacock's prominent positioning of Bugonia needs to be understood within the larger context of streaming platforms competing for prestige content. Netflix has spent billions building a reputation as a home for acclaimed cinema. Apple TV+ positions itself as the quality-over-quantity platform. Even Amazon Prime Video, which spent years focused on volume, has shifted toward prestige with acquisitions like MGM Studios.

NBCUniversal can't let Peacock be perceived as the platform that only offers The Real Housewives and old episodes of Law & Order. The company needs Peacock to be taken seriously as a destination for quality film content. That requires investing in films like Bugonia even when their theatrical performance disappoints.

This is especially important because Peacock is relatively late to the streaming wars. The platform launched in July 2020, years after Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and even Disney+. It's playing catch-up in a market where consumers already have multiple streaming subscriptions and are increasingly selective about adding new ones.

Exclusive access to acclaimed films provides a competitive advantage. When potential subscribers compare Peacock to competitors, being able to stream the latest Yorgos Lanthimos film becomes a tangible differentiator. It signals that Peacock offers something you can't get elsewhere, at least during the initial streaming window.

The strategy also helps with international expansion. Peacock has limited international availability compared to global platforms like Netflix. But partnering with local platforms to distribute prestige films like Bugonia can create international awareness and brand value. When Peacock does expand into new markets, the reputation as a platform that distributes acclaimed cinema makes subscriber acquisition easier.

The Focus Features Strategy Creates a Prestige Pipeline

Focus Features, which produced and distributed Bugonia, operates as Universal's specialty division for prestige and art house films. Its catalog includes films like Brokeback Mountain, Lost in Translation, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and more recently, The Northman and Tár.

For Peacock, having access to the entire Focus Features slate creates a sustainable competitive advantage. These are exactly the kind of critically acclaimed, awards-oriented films that drive prestige value for streaming platforms. And because Focus Features is owned by Universal, which is owned by NBCUniversal, which owns Peacock, the entire pipeline is vertically integrated.

This is one area where Peacock has a structural advantage over competitors. Netflix has to buy or produce every prestige film in its library. Apple TV+ produces originals but doesn't have a legacy studio providing consistent prestige content. HBO Max benefits from Warner Bros., but that relationship has been complicated by corporate restructuring.

Peacock's relationship with Focus Features is clean and permanent. Every acclaimed Focus Features release automatically becomes Peacock content within four months of theatrical release. This includes Bugonia, but also extends to future releases and the entire back catalog.

The prestige value compounds over time. Peacock can market itself as the streaming home for Yorgos Lanthimos films, showcasing not just Bugonia but potentially future Lanthimos projects if they continue partnering with Focus Features. The platform can curate collections around acclaimed directors, Oscar-winning films, and Venice Film Festival selections, all leveraging the Focus Features relationship.

This makes the "investment" in Bugonia look very different. Peacock isn't just betting on one film. It's reinforcing the value of its entire relationship with Focus Features and signaling to the market that it's a serious destination for prestige cinema.

What Bugonia's Performance Tells Us About the Future

If Bugonia's streaming performance on Peacock is strong, which we likely won't know given that streaming platforms rarely release specific viewership data, it validates this entire strategy. It proves that theatrical disappointments can become streaming successes if they have the right ingredients: acclaimed directors, A-list talent, awards buzz, and critical praise.

This would encourage more studios to pursue similar strategies. Why spend $100 million marketing a challenging film for theatrical release when you can spend $30 million on a limited theatrical campaign focused on awards eligibility, then drive streaming viewership through nominations and critical acclaim?

The risk is that this approach could further erode theatrical moviegoing for adult dramas. If studios conclude that films like Bugonia work better as streaming content with token theatrical releases, we'll see fewer mid-budget dramas getting meaningful theatrical distribution. That's already happening, but success stories like Bugonia on Peacock would accelerate the trend.

From a pure business perspective, the strategy makes sense. From a cultural perspective, it's more complicated. Theatrical moviegoing provides a communal experience that streaming can't replicate. Films that work best on big screens with focused attention suffer when they become content competing for attention alongside social media, texts, and household distractions.

But nostalgia for theatrical exhibition doesn't change economic reality. If prestige films can't consistently draw theatrical audiences large enough to justify their budgets, they'll continue migrating to streaming-first models. Peacock's investment in Bugonia reflects that reality rather than creating it.

The Smart Play That Most People Will Misunderstand

What frustrates me about the discourse around Bugonia is how many people still frame it as a failure. The film achieved exactly what Focus Features and Peacock needed it to achieve. It generated critical acclaim with an 87% Rotten Tomatoes score. It secured three Golden Globe nominations and three Critics Choice nods. It made AFI's Top 10 list. It created cultural conversation around Emma Stone's fearless performance and Yorgos Lanthimos's distinctive vision.

The theatrical gross is almost irrelevant to this equation. The film's value lies in the awareness it built, the prestige it generated, and the streaming viewership it will drive. Peacock gets a major awards contender to market to subscribers during the crucial holiday period when platforms compete most intensely for attention.

This is sophisticated content strategy that recognizes how different distribution channels create different types of value. Theatrical releases build cultural legitimacy and awards eligibility. Streaming releases drive subscriber acquisition and retention while generating advertising revenue.

Bugonia succeeds at both parts of this equation even though its theatrical gross suggests failure by traditional standards. The sooner we recognize that streaming platforms operate on different metrics than theatrical distributors, the better we'll understand the actual business of modern filmmaking.

I don't love all the implications of this shift. I prefer watching films like Bugonia in theaters where the full impact of the cinematography and sound design can be appreciated. But my preferences don't determine industry economics. Peacock made a smart business decision based on the realities of contemporary streaming competition.

What This Means for Similar Films

The Bugonia model will likely influence how studios approach similar prestige projects. We should expect to see more acclaimed films getting modest theatrical releases designed primarily for awards eligibility, followed by prominent streaming launches timed to maximize awards season visibility.

This is already happening with other platforms. Netflix continues pursuing this strategy despite criticism about undermining theatrical exhibition. Apple TV+ alternates between theatrical-first releases for major projects like Killers of the Flower Moon and streaming-first releases for smaller prestige films.

What makes Peacock's situation unique is the structural advantage of owning Focus Features. The platform doesn't need to compete for prestige content the way Netflix or Apple TV+ does. It has a built-in pipeline of exactly the type of films that drive streaming prestige: acclaimed, awards-oriented cinema from respected filmmakers.

Bugonia represents Peacock learning to leverage this advantage effectively. Rather than treating Focus Features releases as just another piece of content, the platform is recognizing their strategic value and marketing them accordingly. This is what vertical integration looks like when executed well.

For filmmakers, this creates both opportunities and challenges. Directors like Lanthimos who make challenging, awards-oriented films have a guaranteed path to distribution and prominent platform positioning through the Focus Features and Peacock relationship. But they may have to accept that theatrical runs will be limited and streaming will be the primary exhibition model.

For audiences, it means more acclaimed films becoming accessible on streaming platforms relatively quickly after theatrical release. That's democratizing in some ways, making prestige cinema available to viewers who can't or won't go to theaters. But it also means fewer chances to see these films in optimal theatrical presentations.

Peacock Made the Right Call

When NBCUniversal executives decided to prominently feature Bugonia on Peacock despite its theatrical underperformance, they were making a calculation about what drives streaming value in 2025. They concluded that awards prestige, critical acclaim, and star power matter more than box office receipts.

They're right. The theatrical gross measures only one small part of a film's total value. For streaming platforms, cultural relevance, subscriber engagement, and content library prestige are far more important metrics. Bugonia delivers on all of these even though it didn't deliver at the box office.

This doesn't mean every theatrical disappointment should get prominent streaming positioning. The strategy works for Bugonia because it has the right ingredients: major stars, an acclaimed director, genuine awards buzz, and strong critical reception. These elements create streaming demand that can be monetized through subscriptions and advertising.

The broader lesson is that we need to stop judging films by theatrical grosses alone. The economics of cinema have fundamentally changed. Success looks different now than it did even five years ago. Peacock understands this. The question is whether audiences, critics, and the industry at large will catch up to this new reality.

Bugonia might be a theatrical flop, but it's exactly the kind of streaming success story that defines how prestige cinema works in 2025. Peacock didn't make a mistake by featuring it prominently. They made the only strategic choice that makes sense given contemporary streaming economics. Whether we like these economics is a separate question from whether Peacock made the smart business decision.

They did.

Related Reads: Emma Stone And Jesse Plemons Are On The Bubble For Oscar Nods: Here's Why They Deserve To Get In